About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZALCJHB 7
|
|
Kgobokoe v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1532/10, GATW14335/09) [2010] ZALCJHB 7 (22 December 2010)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD
AT BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE NO JR 1532/10
GATW
14335/09
In
the matter between:
POGISO
KGOBOKOE
Applicant
and
COMMISSION
FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
AND
ARBITRATION
First
Respondent
COMMISSIONER
B. VAN DYK
Second
Respondent
SITA
(PTY) LTD
Third
Respondent
MPM
PERSONNEL
Fourth
Respondent
JUDGMENT
COETZEE
AJ:
Introduction
1.
Applicant applies for the review and
setting aside of a ruling dated 11 May 2010.
2.
The Commissioner on 11 May 2010 made the
following ruling:
“
The
citation of the Employer is amended as follows: MPM Personnel,
[…….]”.
3.
The Applicant complains that the
Commissioner at the arbitration agreed to
join
MPM Personnel as a further party and
not
to substitute
MPM Personnel as the only
employer party.
Service
4.
It is necessary to first deal with whether
proper service has taken place and whether this matter is unopposed.
5.
The attorneys for Fourth Respondent by
notice of intention to oppose dated 28 June 2010 served and filed the
notice upon Applicant
and the other Respondents. The notice was
received by the labour Court on 1 July 2010.
6.
Fourth Respondent therefore is a party to
the review proceedings as from that date opposing the review
application.
7.
In a letter dated 29 October 2010 Fourth
Respondent’s legal representatives pointed out that the CCMA
had filed the record
of proceedings, but that Fourth Respondent had
not received a copy of the record, nor a notice in terms of Rule
7A(8) of the rules
of the Labour Court. They further indicated
their client’s intention to file an answering affidavit on
behalf of their
client.
8.
The Court requested Applicant to provide
proof of service of its notice in terms of Rule 7A(8)(b) dated 21
October 2010 upon Fourth
Respondent either on the Fourth Respondent
directly or on its attorneys of record.
9.
The Court’s attention was drawn to a
postal slip in respect of a registered letter addressed to
MPM
Personnel
. The slip is dated 21
October 2010 and is incomplete and it is not clear what the exact
address is that the accompanying
letter or document was sent to. It
appears to have been addressed to Fourth Respondent.
10.
Fourth Respondent by that time had duly
appointed legal representatives to act on its behalf. It is expected
of applicant to serve
his papers upon the Fourth Respondent at the
address appointed for service thereof.
11.
There is no evidence to show that the
notice in terms of Rule 7A(8) has been served upon Fourth Respondent
either at the address
of its attorneys of record or on itself and
there is no evidence to show that Fourth Respondent in any other way
became aware of
or actually received a copy of this notice.
12.
Applicant indicated that he was in
possession of electronic communications that would show that Fourth
Respondent received the notice
and its annexures.
13.
The Court is not persuaded that what the
service of the notice took place.
Finding
14.
This matter is an opposed matter where some
of the documents have not been properly served upon one of the
Respondent’s wishing
to oppose the application.
Order
15.
Applicant is ordered to serve its notice in
terms of Rule 7A(8)(b) with its annexures comprising the record of
the arbitration proceedings
on the Fourth Respondent at the address
of its Attorney of record and to submit proof thereof to the
Registrar.
16.
The matter is postponed sine die.
17.
There is no order as to costs.
____________________________
COETZEE
AJ
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT
DATE
OF HEARING:
20
DECEMBER 2010
DATE
OF JUDGMENT:
22 December 2010
APPEARANCES:
FOR
APPLICANT:
IN PERSON
FOR
THE RESPONDENTS:
NO APPEARANCE